The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight the Ebonics story, with a report from California and a discussion about literacy; a Betty Ann Bowser report on domestic violence and the law; a David Gergen dialogue on remaking the world order; and a look back at the opium wars of China. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton said today he was confident he could negotiate a budget plan with Congress. He spoke to reporters in the Oval Office at an event with Education Sec. Richard Riley. Riley released a report highlighting a drop in the default rate on student loans. It's now under 11 percent, down from 22 in 1990. Mr. Clinton said he wanted the rate to go even lower, and he pledged to enact further education tax breaks with the help of Congress.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If the atmosphere of this Congress reflects what happened in the last two months of the last Congress, I think the American people will get their balanced budget, they will get these education tax cuts, they will get the next step of welfare reform to create jobs for people who are going to be moving from welfare to work. And it will be a very, very good time. The atmosphere so far feels good to me. And if we just keep working on it, I think we can get there.

JIM LEHRER: The President is expected to present his budget on February 6th, two days after his State of the Union Address. The 105th Congress today officially recognized President Clinton as the winner of the November presidential election. As required by the Constitution, the House and the Senate held a joint meeting to count the electoral ballots. The electors cast their votes in December, after the November 5th election. Two Senators and two Representatives announced the winning ticket from each state. Vice President Gore then announced the totals.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: The state of the vote for President of the United States as delivered to the president of the Senate is as follows: The whole number of electors appointed to vote for President of the United States is 538, of which a majority is 270. Bill Clinton of the state of Arkansas has received for President of the United States 379 votes. Bob Dole of the state of Kansas has received 159 votes.

JIM LEHRER: The House Ethics Committee will hold public hearings into Speaker Gingrich's ethics violations starting Monday. An announcement today said the hearings will be held--will end by Friday of that week. The Committee is scheduled to recommend a penalty to the House by January 19th, followed by a full House vote by January 21st. A Senate hearing on Gulf War illness opened today with criticism of the Pentagon. Both the Republican chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Arlen Specter, and the ranking Democrat criticized the military's investigation. The Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, put it this way.

SEN. JAY ROCKELLER, [D] West Virginia: I remain, Mr. Chairman, very concerned that the years of poor response by the Pentagon to the problems of these men and women has irrevocably undermined the public's faith in the ability of this government to honestly deal with this issue. And I regret that, and I think you and I seek to change that.

JIM LEHRER: Rockefeller also said he wanted to obtain access to private logs kept by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War. At the Pentagon, spokesman Kenneth Bacon responded.

KENNETH BACON, Pentagon Spokesman: I think the judges are wrong, and an independent committee has found them to be wrong. Dr. Lashof, the chairman of the presidential advisory committee, has said there's no cover-up, and there has been no cover-up. I think this is a wild goose chase frankly on your part and also on the parts of Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Specter.

JIM LEHRER: Schwarzkopf told Pentagon officials today investigators would be invited to examine his private laws. And late today a Delta commuter plane crashed in snowy weather 25 miles South of Detroit. There were 28 people aboard the twin-engine flight from Cincinnati. A spokesman for the Detroit Metropolitan Airport said all were feared dead. The plane was operated for Delta by the Ohio-based Comair Company. In Moscow today, officials said Russian President Yeltsin's pneumonia was being treated with modern antibiotics, and that his condition was stable. The president was admitted to the hospital yesterday. In South Korea today union members led another day of protests. We have more in this report from Sirah Shah of Independent Television News.

SIRAH SHAH: Thousands of striking workers laid siege to the center of Seoul, hurling rubble at riot police in some of the worst violence in two weeks of strikes and protests. The police responded with volleys of tear gas. As pitched battles continued into the night, even the paving stones were levered up for missiles. The unions insist they won't give their opposition to a stringent, new labor law aimed at making it easier for companies to lay off workers--against the tradition of jobs for life. But the President, Kim Jung Sam, promised harsh measures against the strikers. And today the courts backed him, ordering 20 key unionist leaders currently holed up in the city's Myongdong Cathedral to appear in court tomorrow. They've refused, making a police siege and further violence look even more certain.

JIM LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Ebonics and literacy, domestic violence, a David Gergen dialogue, and the opium wars. FOCUS - READING MATTERS

JIM LEHRER: Ebonics of black English is first tonight. Last night a nationwide debate was ignited when the Oakland, California School Board recognized Ebonics as a language. We begin our coverage with this report from Spencer Michels.

TEACHER: Ebonics is very simply an African language system on top of English lexicon.

SPENCER MICHELS: Oakland public schools, which are 53 percent African American, have a pilot program already in place to teach standard English proficiency to children who often talk a different language among themselves. That dialect or language system is sometimes called black English or Ebonics, a term coined by linguists in 1973 from the words "ebony" and "phonics." Ebonics uses different grammar, syntax, pronunciation, and slang.

CARRIE SECRET, Oakland Teacher: The verb "to be" does not really exist. So I be, you be, that stays, and many times it's not even in the sentence. Where your mama? She home. Those are strong features of the language I think that are misunderstood and considered ignorant speech when it is a very, very structured, structured language.

SPENCER MICHELS: Some Oakland teachers use Ebonics as a base from which to teach standard English.

TEACHER: Is slang bad?

STUDENTS: No.

SPENCER MICHELS: The school board wants to expand this program. So last month members passed a resolution they hoped would facilitate acquisition and mastery of English language skills. But they went further. They said African language systems are genetically based and not a dialect of English. They officially recognized the existence of Ebonics. And they called for a program for imparting instruction to African-American students in their primary language.

TEACHER: Is your teacher teaching you Ebonics in this classroom?

STUDENT: No. She's teaching us English because we already knew Ebonics when we first came here.

TEACHER: Oh.

SPENCER MICHELS: The resolution touched off a round of ridicule and criticism of the board for legitimizing and in some eyes actually teaching black English. Delaine Eastin is California schools chief.

DELAINE EASTIN, California Schools Superintendent: We think there are other proven approaches that Oakland should have studied first- -cross-age tutoring, after school education programs for kids.

SPENCER MICHELS: Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson voiced his concerns on "Meet the Press."

REV. JESSE JACKSON: I understand the attempt to reach out to those children, but this is an unacceptable surrender borderlining on disgrace.

SPENCER MICHELS: Jackson's criticism stunned the Oakland School Board. They invited him to a meeting in the district, and they tried to clarify the resolution by adding to it, "We are not teaching Ebonics." School board President Toni Cook explained the policy.

TONI COOK, President, Oakland School Board: That we must ensure that our children master the English language, both reading, writing, and the speaking; and that our children already come to school with a language form, and since I'm not a linguist, it--some want to call it Ebonics; some want to call it African language system--my grandmother will probably just call it bad English. But it doesn't matter; that the kids come to us with this, and if we're going to bridge the gap from where the kids are to where we want them to go, that what we have to do is to make sure that our teachers have the right kind of training and the teaching strategies not to devalue the child.

SPENCER MICHELS: But there were differences between the board's intent and what it actually wrote which attracted all the attention. The resolution was confusing to some people because it appeared to legitimize Ebonics as a separate language.

SPENCER MICHELS: No language?

TONI COOK: No, we did not say that. The resolution does not say that. The--we did not say that as a board, it was not said at the press conference, and it was not said at the school board meeting.

SPENCER MICHELS: But that seemed to be what caused the trouble.

TONI COOK: Like I say, maybe we all got a few problems with standard English.

SPENCER MICHELS: As the furor over Ebonics continued, Jackson came to Oakland to mend fences. He and the board used the controversy and the attention it received to focus on the plight of black youth--one half born in poverty attending under- funded schools, making average grades of C-. The controversy over language remained.

REV. JESSE JACKSON: I think the essential confusion is a black language pattern when it gets elevating the pattern to a language. A language pattern is not a language. And the intent of the resolution is not to elevate a pattern to a language. Their intent, they say, is to detect, direct, and teach standard, competitive English.

SPENCER MICHELS: Did you essentially change your mind? Did you have a change of heart?

REV. JESSE JACKSON: I have not changed anything. The board clarified its intent. It's to teach standard American English; to qualify youth to go to school; to qualify them to make job applications. That's different than the first message--was that they're going to teach black English, which was a kind of a surrender, which was objectionable. It was like teaching down to our children, so people rejected that.

SPENCER MICHELS: On ABC's "Nightline" another black leader, Kweisi Mfume, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, admitted he too was confused by Oakland's original statement.

KWEISI MFUME, NAACP President: I must say that I am heartened to know that the school system in Oakland does not plan to teach Ebonics to young people because then I think it would be a cruel joke. There is within the larger African-American community and in other communities, there is dialect. So they are not languages. They are dialects, and they have always been there and probably will always be there. We have to find ways to bridge out of that into proper English, proper communicated skills, but we should not be prepared to call it a second language, or even a primary language. Ithink it is essentially a dialect.

SPENCER MICHELS: But the debate over dialect or separate language has gone far beyond that, according to University of California linguistics professor Robin Lakoff. She says whoever controls language has the power.

ROBIN LAKOFF, Linguistics Professor: The reason why this has stirred up the hornets' nest it has is that it's language being directly political; that it's language working as a political instrument, language allocating power. And one of the things that is an undercurrent here, being argued over, is whether speakers of black English have the right to use that language, whether their language has a legitimacy equal to that of standard white English.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Linguists Society of America meeting last Friday in Chicago agreed that the debate over language and dialect is being fought on social and political, rather than linguistic grounds. And while they supported the Oakland School Board position, 1,000 linguists called for more resources to be made available to teach standard English, a consensus position that seems to have emerged nationally out of this controversy.

JIM LEHRER: Now more on improving reading and writing skills and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: As we just heard, improving literacy is a key theme in the debate over Ebonics. The gap between academic achievement rates of whites and minorities is widening again after 20 years of narrowing. According to a report released last month by the Education Trust, a non-profit research organization, minorities are learning less at every level. For instance, among fourth graders approximately four of every ten white students are proficient in reading but only one in eleven African-American and one in eight Latino fourth graders are proficient readers. We get three perspectives now. Carol Rasco currently serves as director of President Clinton's Domestic Policy Council. In the second term she will direct the administration's new literacy project at the Department of Education. Paul Harleston spent three years teaching in Oakland, California grade schools. He now teaches fifth grade and language arts in the Washington, D.C. public schools. John Chubb is the director of curriculum at the Edison Project, a non- project education organization working primarily in inner cities. Thank you all for being with us. Ms. Rasco, the Oakland school board was clearly trying to deal with the real problem, the levels of literacy among the students in the Oakland schools. How big a problem is this?

CAROL RASCO, Domestic Policy Council: Well, the problem of literacy among our elementary school students is a serious one and a widespread one. You've just talked about the numbers and often we hear those numbers, I think, related to urban schools, but I would say that across the country we see that problem, whether in rural or urban. And I always try to look behind those numbers. And I think of the children I've met and children I hear about that fit those numbers and what does that really mean, and that's when it becomes real and you understand that there's something there far beyond just lacking that skill to read. But as children go further and cannot read, it affects how they look at themselves, and it certainly affects how well they can do in other subjects, or how well they do not do. It's of great concern to us.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Harleston, you've--what kind of skills do you see the students that you're seeing lack?

PAUL HARLESTON, Elementary Reading Teacher: There's a lack of-- I notice we go to skills,but certainly lack of reading emphasis in the communities that the kids live in that I teach, that they don't see--as often, and because of that, they're not as interested in reading. Some of them are not as interested in reading, and you can see a clear difference between students are in a print rich environment that have gotten a head start in reading either through the school or from their parents that have gained a love of reading, and that branches into success in all other areas of academics, and students that don't have that, that background and that basis are kind of denied access.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In your experience, would you call it a crisis? Do you think this is being hyped? How do you see it?

PAUL HARLESTON: No. I don't think it's being hyped at all. I would agree with Ms. Rasco that it's not just an urban problem, it's an urban rural problem, and the statistics seem to show that kids are being left behind. Some kids are being left behind the majority of students in the country.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How are the kids in your fifth grade class doing this year?

PAUL HARLESTON: I actually have the fortune of a great fifth grade class this year. I would say that the majority of my students are reading near, above, or at grade level, which I think is a testimony to some of the programs in evidence in my school like--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. We're going to get back to that. We're going to come to programs in a minute. Mr. Chubb, I made a mistake in introducing you. Your organization is for profit, I understand.

JOHN CHUBB, Edison Project: [New York] That's correct.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Excuse me. How big is the problem? How serious, in your view?

JOHN CHUBB: Well, I think that the other speakers have it correct, that it is a serious problem. I take some--I take some considerable encouragement, though, from the world of research and experience, and that's what we've tried to draw on in the communities in which we work. There is a great deal known about promoting literacy skills, and we'll get around to the programs later. But I think that we know what it takes to promote reading and writing and speaking and listening skills among all kids, regardless of background. But we as a country have not committed ourselves efficiently to making this happen. We do know how to make it happen.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Let's get into the reasons for this. There has been attention to illiteracy in this country for many years now. Why is this such a big problem still and especially in- -among minority students? What are the reasons for the problem, Mr. Chubb?

JOHN CHUBB: Well, the--you begin with the--with the home environment and the community environment. And if there is not sufficient reinforcement or emphasis on, on traditional education, especially reading, writing, and mathematics in that environment, and the school has, has an uphill battle. And I mean, as a society, we still have lots of problems of poverty in the cities and rural areas, where the schools have to begin with kids substantially behind. And I think that's the essence of why we still face such a difficult battle because of the social problems that are behind the education problems.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you agree with that, Mr. Harleston, or is it a problem of home, of poverty? You mentioned already that you thought a lot had to do with whether you're being read to at home. Resources for the schools, is that a problem?

PAUL HARLESTON: Absolutely. I would say that one of the problems that schools have, especially under resourced schools, are libraries, and books that are interesting to kids. Once, you know, the schools have done what they can to spark the interest in reading in the students, then sometimes it's very difficult to get good literature in their hands.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Has that been your experience?

PAUL HARLESTON: Absolutely. I've been in school libraries where we have books that still refer to Richard Petty as the young lion. And he recently retired. And things like that--and there's just things that kids are not as interested in reading. It's very difficult to find interesting literature for them, and that starts to let that spark die in there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What other reasons would you give for the problems?

PAUL HARLESTON: I think that it's--I think that the way that school districts maybe sometimes attack the problem. Often instead of focusing on--I think the Ebonics example is very, very relevant. Instead of focusing on the problem, which is the fact that the students aren't achieving, they start to look more for which group or which method is to blame. And a new method comes in. I've been in staff development with teachers and will be introduced to a new curriculum or a new way of teaching, and what seems that way to me is a relatively new teacher, and I'll hear experienced teachers say, oh, you know, we tried that in 1978, oh, we tried that in 1990, and things--there's always a cure being looked for, and sometimes the problem, itself, gets ignored.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: That's interesting. What do you think about the reasons for this problem? This is not a new--people have known for a while we have a literacy problem in this country.

CAROL RASCO: Right. Well, I think in relation to what he just said, people are always looking for that magic solution. They're looking for the cookie cutter that's going to fit every child, and we know that you have to look at the individual child. And we talk about that so often, and yet when it comes to being so very busy and having children that we're trying to meet a number of their needs we tend not to carry over that rhetoric of needing to look at the individual child into how do we meet that child's learning needs? Reading is a skill, not just a course you take. And so how do we look at where that child is and take them where they are and move them to a reading level? I also want to stress, and I think we've already said it, but the preschool experience, and part of that experience is do we have children who are healthy? I often find when I visit a preschool, day care centers, or other preschool experiences, or even schools that teachers tell me that far too often we don't pay attention to can that child hear, can that child see what's going on, or be--see the printed page.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Excuse me for interrupting, but you're actually moving to the Department of Education to be part of a major literacy program that the Clinton administration is hoping to get funded in Congress. Is that going to be part of your program? And tell us what else is involved in your program.

CAROL RASCO: Well, certainly the preschool experience is part of what we will be stressing. The components of the "America Reads Challenge" that the President has set forward. It's based, first of all, on the knowledge we have that 40 percent of our fourth graders cannot read at basic levels on challenging national tests. And so we, in designing the program we are putting forward, we've looked at things that we know work, that research has told us these are components that can help. The first component is to start with that early childhood period, and to see what we can do to help promote programs that are going on all across the country and are showing successes. Where we support parents as first teachers, parents are the first and best teachers, and we want to have a program that we're reaching out to those programs that are showing successes in those areas. And those programs do things like help parents know how to take a child through a picture book and work with them and get them excited about how to learn more about nutrition for their children, about regular health checkups. We also want to see the extension of Head Start in the ages three and four. Another part and the largest part of the program will be what we're calling the Reading Corps. And this will be for kindergarten through third grade. Where we want to invest in more reading specialists who can direct after school, weekend, and summer programs, we want those reading specialists and people who are serving in AmeriCorps to supervise the one million volunteers that we want to recruit who will be partners with the schools. For example, I taught sixth grade. I think the--the ache in my heart to this day from that experience is remembering young people in my class whose heads hung lower and lower as the year went on because they just realized they couldn't keep up because they couldn't read the materials.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Harleston, do you think--what do you think needs to be done? Does this seem like it would be helpful? What would you do if you could be in charge of a program?

PAUL HARLESTON: I think a lot of what Ms. Rasco said is very helpful. It's the right road for us to be taking. We have a program at our school. It's called HOSTS, Helping One Student To Succeed. And through that program we've seen kids that are mentored four days a week during their lunch periods in addition to the regular instruction they're receiving, starts to succeed at a greater rate than some of the other students.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Who's funding that program?

PAUL HARLESTON: That's through a national program I think out of Washington, but I'm not sure. And things of that nature, things that will, I think, get a number of volunteers working in schools, getting the country, a million volunteers getting a country energized behind this literacy problem I think is going to be something that will prove ultimately successful.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Chubb, what do you think works? What do you think needs to be done?

JOHN CHUBB: Well, at the Edison Project we're working in right now in eight communities around the country with, with roughly 7,000 students. And we take a comprehensive approach, much as the other speakers have described is necessary. I'll just review briefly some of the key elements of that. No. 1, we do teach reading directly in addition to stimulating kids with lots of exciting, and colorful, and engaging children's books. We do provide direct instruction in the phonetic basis of language which is important for many, many kids. There are lots of kids who will learn to read almost by osmosis, just--to great books and literature and so forth. But many kids do need direct instruction in reading and in something called phonics in the popular world. And we provide a substantial component, both of the literature rich approach and of a phonics approach. Second--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Chubb, I don't want to hurry you but we're just about out of time, so if you could run through them fairly quickly, it would be great.

JOHN CHUBB: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sorry.

JOHN CHUBB: Just very quickly, we provide individual tutoring to kids who are falling behind. We provide a longer school day and a longer school year, which are somewhat radical ideas, but many kids from disadvantaged situations simply need more time. And that also- -that also is crucial. And then finally technology is an important part of the solution. Computers can help engage kids and reinforce instruction.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'm going to interrupt you. We're tight tonight with time. But thank you so much, all of you, for being with us.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, domestic violence, a Gergen dialogue, and China remembers. FOCUS - BACKFIRE

JIM LEHRER: Now domestic violence and the law. The Denver Police Force is grappling with some unexpected fallout from the new federal gun control law. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Every police officer knows one of the most powerful weapons against crime is a gun. But under a new amendment to the Federal Gun Control Act, two Denver police officers have been forced to turn in their guns because they both have domestic violence convictions. Passed by Congress in September of last year, the amendment makes it illegal for anyone convinced of a domestic violence misdemeanor to possess a firearm. But it didn't become clear until last month when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms sent out a letter to all law enforcement agencies that the law also applied to them.

MAN: Congress approved the ban on firearms ownership for persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Denver Police Department responded almost immediately, becoming the first in the nation to bring its force into compliance. The two officers had to surrender their guns and take temporary desk jobs.

LT. JOHN LAMB, Lawyer: Those two particular officers were reassigned to non-line functions and at this time they're not allowed to possess a firearm or ammunition, either on duty or off duty.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Lt. John Lamb, an attorney who heads the Denver Police Department's Civil Liability Bureau, says the law is too new to determine its complete impact, but jobs may be in jeopardy.

LT. JOHN LAMB: We're waiting to get some more direction nationwide, and we'll see how this works out among law enforcement and the military nationwide. Ultimately, if something does not change, the bottom line is you can't be a police officer if you cannot possess a firearm. So ultimately it could be job ending.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It's not clear how many police officers could lose their jobs nationwide because most departments have not taken action yet. But what is very clear in Denver is the unpopularity of the new law among rank and file cops. Eight-year veteran Mike McCafferty rides the 3 to midnight shift in one of Denver's most dangerous neighborhoods. He sees domestic violence all the time. In fact, his first call on the day "we" rode with him was to assist in the arrest of a man suspected of wife beating. McCafferty says police officers feel unfairly penalized by the law.

OFC. MIKE McCAFFERTY, Denver Police Department: I think most of em think it's unfair for the fact that it does take our livelihood away. You know, if you're a plumber, or if you're a carpenter, or if you're in another job like that, you're not going to lose your livelihood over this. We should be held to a higher standard, but then again we're also human. And things happen.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Denver Police Union says it may challenge the constitutionality of the law incourt because it applies to past domestic violence convictions. Detective John Wyckoff is a union board member.

DET. JOHN WYCKOFF, Denver Police Department: I joined the Denver Police Department 27 + years ago. And at that time the requirement was nothing--had nothing to do with a conviction for domestic violence. Now, if in that 27-year career, if I would have been-- had a problem with domestic violence, you're going to tell me today that I can't be a police officer; that I have to change my occupation? That was not the hiring requirement that I was hired under. And I think you're changing midstream.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Wyckoff and other union members say police officers who've been convicted of domestic violence have gone through the court system and paid their dues. They argue the new law, in effect, amounts to retroactive double jeopardy.

DET. JOHN WYCKOFF: I think that if a person in the Denver Police Department has a problem with domestic violence, not one time in their life but as a pattern, just like in the rest of society, if you have a pattern problem, they need to be dealt with very strongly, if not terminated. But I don't think because a person has a problem one time in their life that they should be painted with the tattoo that lasts forever.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But the person who will have to prosecute cases under the new law doesn't see it that way. Henry Solano is a U.S. attorney in Denver.

HENRY SOLANO, U.S. District Attorney: We don't take the view that it is retroactive. I mean, what it does is it takes a person whose current status and condition based upon prior conduct is now precluding them from possessing a firearm.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Lani Gibbs of the Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition also has no problem with the law being retroactive.

LANI GIBBS, Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition: The law shows some understanding that domestic violence is characterized by repeat offenses; that--and that there is a lot of danger attached. We worry about women being killed, and that's one of the things that we have seen with domestic violence because it's a repeat offense. And the more oftentimes that it's repeated the lethality increases.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Spousal abuse was in the headlines in Denver last month when a man who had been arrested repeatedly for beating his wife allegedly shot and killed her, his two stepchildren, and himself. Even though the man was not a cop, Gibbs says it shows the importance of getting guns out of the hands of anyone who physically harms their loved ones.

LANI GIBBS: This law should apply across the board to every profession, et cetera, whether you carry a firearm for professional reasons, or personal, recreational, et cetera. I think that we need to be very proactive and very clear that domestic violence is a crime and it has criminal sanction. And you, yes, you may lose your job if you are convicted of domestic violence.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Gibbs is working with her coalition to force all police departments in the state into compliance.

LANI GIBBS: The Pueblo sheriffs and police department want to-- are saying that they are not going to abide by this law. So what do you think we need to do? Where do we need to go with it?

WOMAN: I think we need to call the ATF to find out what the directive was that was sent to the police stations and law enforcement personnel.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Police Departments are hoping to get the law changed before they have to comply. Representatives of national police organizations are meeting with the White House staff to discuss possible legislative changes. But U.S. attorney Solano says that Congress knew what it was doing when it passed the legislation the first time.

HENRY SOLANO: It is very clear that provision as adopted by Congress to make sure that members of law enforcement are covered by this new provision so that there's no exemption. It would be our desire and our wish that as members of law enforcement charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws, that they would do the responsible thing.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The law also applies to the men and women of the armed forces, but no action has been taken by any of the services. Instead, the Department of Defense has asked the attorney general's office whether there is an exception for members of the military. DIALOGUE

JIM LEHRER: Now a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen, editor at large of "U.S. News & World Report," engages Samuel Huntington, professor of international relations at Harvard University, author of "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order."

DAVID GERGEN: Sam, Jeane Kirkpatrick points out that in the 20th century the greatest outbreaks of violence have occurred within civilizations, the First and Second World War, the Holocaust, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong. Why do you believe that in the 21st century clashes will be between or among civilizations?

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, Author, "The Clash of Civilizations": Because the world has evolved and, in particular, western civilization has evolved, and those clashes that you mentioned were all within western civilization. Civilizations evolve over time, and most scholars of civilization, including people like Carol Quigley, argue that they go through periods of warring states, and eventually evolve into a universal state. The West hasn't reached its universal state as yet, although its close to it, but it certainly has evolved out of its warring state phase, which it was in for a couple of centuries.

DAVID GERGEN: And we talk about the West. Let's be very clear, because you say that is the dominant civilization today--the United States and Europe. What are the nations of the West or big blocs of the West?

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Well, as you mentioned, it's the United States, North America, and Europe, Western Europe. And the big question for the West, of course, and to the Europeans is, what other countries, which were formerly part of the Soviet bloc, should be incorporated into western institutions? And the answer from a civilization point of view is very clear. It is the countries which historically have been part of western Christendom going back a thousand years or more.

DAVID GERGEN: You say in the book that the West is and will remain for years to come the most powerful civilization. Yet, its power relative to that of other civilizations, is declining. Why?

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Well, because the other civilizations are reasserting themselves one can make the argument that actually the peak of western power occurred early in the century, in say the 1920's by some indices. In 1920, the West ruled huge amounts of the world. Over half the world's territory and half the world's population were directly ruled by western governments. Well, that's no longer the case. There's only one non-western territory that I can think is still run by a western government, and that's Hong Kong. And that's going to change very shortly. And so in terms of territorial control, in terms of economic preeminence, the western share of the gross world product is declining as Asian societies in particular develop economically. And hence, the overallwestern power is gradually fading. It will take a long time, and certainly the West will remain the dominant civilization well into the next century, but the decline is occurring.

DAVID GERGEN: What are these other civilizations? There are six or seven you say.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Well, I think the most important ones are orthodox civilization with Russia as a core state, Islamic civilization which stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, and which lacks a core state, but there are several active states within Islam clearly. China--Chinese civilization--Japan, which is really a civilization all unto itself; Hindu civilization, where India, of course, is a preeminent power; Latin America, that I would classify as a separate civilization, although some people wouldn't; and Africa, which is, again, a very disorganized collection of countries which have yet to cohere into any sort of real consciousness but may well do so in the coming decades under the leadership of South Africa.

DAVID GERGEN: You make the argument that the danger to the United States, the challenger civilizations to the United States, Russia, the orthodox civilization, is not one of the challengers. You have two challengers. You have Islam and China.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Right. Right.

DAVID GERGEN: As the great challengers to the United States in the future and to the West in the future.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Right.

DAVID GERGEN: Why will they challenge us, and what form will that challenge take?

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Well, I think as far as China is concerned, it's the economic dynamism of China, which has already made China more assertive in world affairs. One doesn't know whether that economic growth will continue at its recent rates, and China may well go into an economic slide. But if that growth does continue, China will certainly become more and more assertive and will expect to be treated as a major, if not "the" major world power, and certainly as the hegemonic power in East Asia. The United States has a tradition of opposing the domination of either East Asia or Western Europe by a single power. That was, after all, what the war with Japan was about. How will we deal with China's efforts to dominate East Asia? That's one question.

DAVID GERGEN: Right.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: And then there's a question of Islam where the challenge is somewhat different because it stems primarily from the demographic dynamism of Islam, the very high birth rates that have existed in most Muslim countries, and the fact that this has generated an immense youth bulge in most Muslim countries, where the proportion of the population between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five exceeds 20 percent of the total. And when that happens, sociologists and historians have pointed out, there's usually trouble of some sort. And this is the reason for both the trouble within Islam and for the troubles between Muslims and their neighbors in large part, including what has happened in Yugoslavia.

DAVID GERGEN: The clear warning of your book is that the clashes we should be most concerned about are low intensity clashes with the Islamic civilization and the possibility of a big war with China.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Right.

DAVID GERGEN: What are the implications of your argument about clashes coming between civilization? What are the implications for United States foreign policy?

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Well, I think the United States first of all has to recognize the world for what it is. And I think we've been in something of a denial mode, and we are carried away by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of history, which hasn't happened, and hence have not been very quick at adjusting to this terribly complex world where's there's ethnic rivalry of all sorts, and ethnic rivalry becomes most dangerous, of course, when it is between groups from different civilizations because then, as in former Yugoslavia, or the Caucasus or Central Asia or the subcontinent, not to mention the Middle East, there's always the danger of escalation. And so I think American foreign policy clearly has to focus on the intercivilizational conflicts that will challenge us, and we also have to keep our guard up and I think try to reinvigorize relations with our European allies, which I think this administration has rather neglected.

DAVID GERGEN: So pull closer to Europe?

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Yes. Promote the unity of the West.

DAVID GERGEN: Strengthen the western civilization, itself.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Right. Which means not just in military and economic terms but in, also in moral terms and in commitment to western values.

DAVID GERGEN: Right. And move away from the assertion that our values are universal.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: That's right.

DAVID GERGEN: That we can spread all these other values elsewhere. Many would challenge that. They would say, well, that's- -you know, if we drop that assumption, after all, we--as you acknowledge--

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: --we are a missionary nation.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Right.

DAVID GERGEN: We're a missionary culture. We like to bring democracy.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Well, I think we should try to. I think we should try to. I think clearly the United States, as well as other western nations, should stand by their commitments to human rights and democracy and should try to influence other countries to move in that direction. But we have to recognize the limits on our power and the fact that our ability to bring about changes in other societies is, is declining. And Asian societies and Muslim societies are increasingly resentful of our efforts to induce them to adopt our values.

DAVID GERGEN: A final question. Do you--say we have this terrible choice coming up about whether we're going to try to contain China in some fashion, so it doesn't become--

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: That's right.

DAVID GERGEN: --the dominant player in Asia, or that we should accommodate ourselves to China emerging as the dominant player, something that we've never been willing to accept in our foreign policy over the last hundred years or so.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Right.

DAVID GERGEN: Your conclusion seems to be we should accommodate- -we should allow China to emerge as the dominant power because, otherwise, we risk a great war.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Well, I think the worst thing would be for us to stumble into a great war without realizing it, without being the--without being prepared for it. I think it makes sense to try to contain China and limit the expansion of Chinese influence in other Asian countries. The great problem there is we have to have the cooperation of those other Asian countries. It was one thing to contain the Soviet Union in Europe because Britain, France, and Germany were all willing to join in. But will Japan and other Asian countries be willing to join in the containment of China? I'm rather dubious.

DAVID GERGEN: This--your book has stirred up a great controversy. I wish you well in the weeks ahead as you take your message elsewhere. But thank you very much.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Thank you, David. I appreciate it. FINALLY - OPIUM WARS - CHINA

JIM LEHRER: And speaking ofChina, finally tonight, China gets ready to take over Hong Kong this summer and part of that preparation is taking another look at a bitter episode in Chinese history. Ian Williams of Independent Television News reports.

IAN WILLIAMS, ITN: The Pearl River, today one of China's most important commercial gateways. Yet, it was only in the in the 18th century that Britain established its first trading post here, opening up the vast Chinese market to trade. Many western writers portray that as a romantic, adventurous era, the merchants who sailed these waters as rather swashbuckling figures. But that's not the way China sees it. Opium was the only trade that mattered. And in a Guangzhou film studio the consequences of that trade are played out as part of a television series. [music in background] By the 1830's there were thousands of opium dens in Canton and in parts of China opium addiction had reached epidemic proportions, most smuggled in vast quantities by British traders from British India. Actors portraying addicts are in big demand. In addition to this series a major movie and several documentaries are being made to be broadcast around the time of the handover of Hong Kong. In the view of Chinese historians, the handover, itself, shouldn't overshadow the history, the seizure of Hong Kong after a war waged by Britain in defense of the opium trade.

PROFESSOR DUAN YUNGZHANG, Zhongshuan University: [speaking through interpreter] Opium is a poison. The British used it as a weapon to open the door of China. Don't you think that's the most dirty and shameless thing? Even the British author Montgomery called it more dirty and shameless than slave trading.

IAN WILLIAMS: Foreign merchants first came to Canton to service a British addiction, an addiction to tea. By the early 19th century demand was insatiable and the duty on tea imports to Britain accounted for 10 percent of British national revenue. All the tea came from China by way of Canton, as tea cultivation in India only began in 1832. That meant the balance of trade was heavily in China's favor until, that is, opium was brought in to pay for it. The British traders were only allowed to operate on Jardin Island in Canton. Today there's still ample evidence of the early European settlements from where the traders saw little wrong with ignoring Chinese laws outlawing the opium trade; nor did the local Chinese officials who helped them. Then came the arrival in 1839 of Lin Zanshu, sent by the emperor to stamp it all out. Lin, regarded as a national hero, ordered the surrender of all opium. More than a thousand tons, possibly the biggest drugs haul in history, were burned on the banks of the Pearl River. Lin banished the traders and their Chinese middlemen from Canton, events soon followed by armed intervention from Britain. The two sides first came to blows at these forts which guard the Pearl River a short distance from Canton. It was the first armed clash between China and the West, and it was all over in a day. The battle here was short and decisive. An armada of ships from the Royal Navy bombarded these walls, soon breaking the Chinese defenses. Canto was then at the mercy of British guns, and within three weeks Britain seized Hong Kong, an event scholars here regard as a turning point in the modern history of China. In a museum dedicated to the opium wars, visitors are told how it was simply aggression in pursuit of an evil trade. There's no room here for those western interpretations that see it as much about the principal of free trade as opium.

SUSAN LEE, Opium Wars Museum: A few of them will say, oh, it's not aggression; it's only a war of trade. So of course we don't agree with that opinion. So I explain to her, I show the fact after they visited our exhibition , after they listen to my explanation, they will know, they will be convinced by the history.

IAN WILLIAMS: Here too portraits of the British traders Jardine and Matheson. The company they founded is still the largest employer in Hong Kong. Outside, visitors unleash their own cannon balls at the British fleet, scoring a far higher hit rate than was managed by their 19th century ancestors. In the Chinese television series there's little room for subtlety, the British being depicted as arrogant imperialists. Though the director also attributes the success of British aggression to the corruption of the Ching Dynasty. Either way, these events were followed by decades of defeat and decline for China at the hands of foreigners. And the director believes his series has an important nationalist message, that China needs to be strong to avoid it happening again.

HUANG JUN, Director: [speaking through interpreter] It's a historical tragedy, and we need to think about it deeply. We need to look back at its history because we need to accept our failure. We don't want it to happen again.

IAN WILLIAMS: That sentiment's also being conveyed in the way the opium wars are explained to schoolchildren who have no difficulty pointing to the chief villain of the period. Here at one of Guangzhou's oldest high schools they're also taught about how the vile trade in feeble China and how the return of Hong Kong to the motherland will herald a new era.

STUDENT: I think that Hong Kong's return can help China to get stronger and stronger.

FEMALE STUDENT: Most important is we don't let Hong Kong lead our country, and we are--China is Hong Kong's motherland.

IAN WILLIAMS: Today, Guangzhou, the scene of the original crime, is a thriving city, a city that lives on trade and commerce of all kinds. It's also one of China's most open and outward-looking cities, precisely what the early traders had in mind. The city and region have become a magnet to modern of day merchants under China's open door policy of the last two decades. Above the forts that try to keep foreigners out is the vast Pearl River Bridge, designed to bring them in and to be opened on July 1st, one of several projects to mark the handover. At the border crossing from Hong Kong, a massive hoarding promises a better future for the territory, while a giant clock counts down the days and seconds to the handover but also to what's seen by a newly assertive China as the end of a humiliating era. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton said he was confident he could negotiate a balanced budget plan with Congress; the House Ethics Committee announced it will hold public hearings next week into violations of House rules by Speaker Gingrich; and a commuter airliner bound for Detroit crashed South of the city in a snowstorm. All 29 on board were killed. And before we go tonight, an editor's note. We're delighted to report that NewsHour regular Doris Kearns Goodwin was one of this year's winners of the Charles Frankel prize. It's given annually to five Americans for their contributions to the public's understanding of history and the humanities. Doris was honored by President and Mrs. Clinton today in Washington. The President cited her book, "No Ordinary Time, A History of Franklin Roosevelt's White House Years." We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.